Why should science be accepted? (v1.0)

 This is really an article that poses a series of logic assertions. It is an exercise in logic/reasoning but is set in a scientific setting. Only the first statement is a statement about science.  The scientific method is a rigorous approach. It really sounds weird, but I can't spot a logic flaw. Here are the logic assertions. 

1. A consensus science result may get replaced tomorrow with a better and more accurate result as more data comes in.  This is a fact. 
2.  A climate or evolution sceptic for example may argue a particular result they don't like should be ignored because of the above - it may get replaced tomorrow. 
3.  But then by this logic shouldn't all scientific results be ignored because the exact same argument applies to every single one of them? 
4.  Using this argument, when would a scientific result ever not be ignored because there is ALWAYS a tomorrow all the way to infinity? 
5.  That means selective rejection of a scientific result by someone because a better result may come along means really a rejection of ALL scientific results for ever.
6.  You could also reject a result permanently and expect no better result to ever emerge, which is a demonstration of arrogance.
7. Or you could reject it because you disagree, but you must then demonstrate why the whole scientific method is wrong and yours is better. 
8.  Or the rejection is not for a reasoned argument in which case this whole discussion is moot. 

Here is the definition of scientific method from Wikipedia. 

"The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous skepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating hypothesis a through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results. 

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is often similar. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falseable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

 Before broader acceptance a scientific paper or theory goes through extensive peer review."